Dave Snowden in his address on Social Computing & KM during the KM India summit brought about a point on how current organizational structures are not suited for creating social networks and hinder performance. Dave explained this with the Matrix Organizational Structure where people have multiple reporting relationships and no one is sure which way their loyalties should be.
Dave talked about the “Crew or Military Model” of team formation which he termed as more adaptive in nature based on the concepts of “Role” & “Expectation of role”. He explained this with an example of how teams are formed in airlines or ships. People who may or may not have worked before come together to form a team and work as a team based on an understanding of what each persons role is and what to expect from that role.
In the IT industry this model, in intent, is a model that most software development organizations ‘aspire’ to implement while creating teams for developing software. I believe that in theory this is a good concept but there are several questions that need to answered and various soft aspects thought. For example
- “Crew” model would work for teams where the tasks are repeatable, tasks which have little room for variation and have to be done “the same as before way” on time. Tasks which have the procedures defined and the job of the person doing is to just follow the procedures and do it.
- For example, airline crew. pilot, co-pilot, air hostess, stewards, checkin counter assistants. The kind of tasks involved are routine, repeatable, well documented, and need to be performed with precision every time.
- In the software industry, for example each development project is unique and the development life-cycle is ‘not predictable‘ to say the least. To compound matters, skills required may not be available and training may have to done while on the job. This is not the case in crew model where almost all the times things are predictable and follow a predictable sequence. For example, in an airplane you can predict what would happen from the time you take a boarding pass and go to your seat to the time you get down from the flight. It is all very very predictable, linear & sequential. There is no room for variation — unless it is a private chartered russian flight
- Though one may say that even in software development we have roles like PM, Technical Leads, DBA’s etc etc and we know what is expected of that role. However, the reality is that software development is an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process. There is a complex interplay between all stake holders to create the ‘intangible’ software that people want. Now by very nature of their business, airlines/ships can’t have an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process to the nature of work that teams do there. Imagine a team of air hostess emulating an iterative, some what chaotic, emergent process to serve the passengers.!!!
- Another important element is the “customer engagement” in the whole development life-cycle itself where requirements are fluid and can keep changing. Now one could argue that even in a ship or a airplane there is engagement required with the customers, but that engagement and the choices available and hence the options that the crew can exercise are from a limited set that is almost well known in advance. It would be only in an adverse situation of a ship capsizing or a plane mishap (e.g. hi-jack) that the engagement model between all the participants becomes fluid and relatively unknown.
- The most important aspect I feel is the “nature of work” itself. By very nature, software engineering calls for continuous learning & updation of skills while on the job. This is not necessarily true for airline or ship teams. Not to say that they don’t need to learn or improve their skills but that is within a very narrow band and at a slow pace than in software engineering. This aspect leads to totally different behavioral, motivational, aspirational & emotional factors within individuals that then influence people, teams & how they work.
- I also think that teams in crew models the teams need to “coordinate” with each other to perform the task whereas in software development teams need to “collaborate” with each other to perform the task. These two things may look similar but call for totally different actions, engagement models within teams.
The above are just some of the many questions out there. What do you think?
Would ‘Crew or Military’ models of team formation work effectively in software developments? What could be other challenges and opportunities?
Let me illustrate what I mean by 2 examples:
#1: Some time back I had posted about alleged malpractices of Skoda India and so did many other bloggers around India. This incident had nothing to do with me personally and was just my views on what I had heard on an automobile forum. I do not (and don’t intend to) own a Skoda car and yet someone from Skoda India read my blog and here is the comment they posted on my blog and the emails they sent to me had the following (name/email/phone number masked to prevent misuse):
“Please get in touch with Mr. XXXXX from the Skoda after sales department on xxxxx@skoda-auto.co.in or 0240 xxxxxx to resolve your concerns”
Now this action on behalf of Skoda India an act of reaching out just for the sake of reaching out. It has no value at all and just be reading it shows the lack of sincerity that is obvious in the interaction. Here I saw presenting my views and I don’t even own a Skoda and how would reaching out to “Skoda after sales department” help me ??
#2: Sometime back I along with few friends went to a reputed/upscale restaurant for dinner and since we had landed up there without reservation we had to wait for a table. After some time of waiting we were given a table and a smartly dressed, smiling, english speaking waiter came to the table and asked us if we would like regular water or mineral bottled water. We mentioned our choice and he went away and brought water and even poured for us.
As we settled down, the manager came to our table and mentioned that we were given a table that was actually meant for some one else (a family that had been waiting for some time now) and would it be possible for us to wait for another table and have that family take this table. He made a sincere request and we all agreed and we told the waiter that we will wait for a table. After some 10 minutes or so we got a table and we settled down there.
Now the same smartly dressed, smiling, english speaking waiter comes to our table and asks us this question: “would you like regular water or mineral bottled water sir”. we were like zapped..!!! That person, just 10 minutes ago had a conversation with us and had taken our preference and even poured water for us and how come he doesn’t even remember what kind of water do we want???
He was just smiling and that smile just said one thing… “fake smiles & customer service — just for the sake of it”…
Let me put in a disclaimer first: I am no innovation & creativity expert and firmly believe that innovation needs to be embedded in our thought process in everything we do.
However, I have been involved with and seen quite a few aspects of innovation, creativity etc from close quarters and have interacted with the so called innovation SME’s from the industry quite often.
Few days back, some of my friends were discussing about innovation & role of ‘innovation experts’ and an interesting case of an ’self styled, keyboard’ innovation expert came up. She was working as an innovation expert and was responsible for creating an innovation culture within the organization. It came about that all she did was bitch about how the organization was not ready for innovation & no one listened to her & how that organizations innovation strategy was all wrong, etc.. etc. Now, think of it, she was responsible for doing all this. If all this was already there and the organization was ready and things were rosy, then why did the organization even need her in the first place
Friends from that organization mentioned that all she did in that organization was read books, blog, attend conferences, confuse people with theories, use jargon and project herself as an innovation expert. “she was happy talking about innovation rather than helping with/demonstrating innovation” was what people told me.
Here are some of the key points that came out of an intense discussion about these so called/self styled “innovation experts”.
- Most of the times these innovation experts have NO CLUE to what they are talking about and are far removed from reality/business context
- The irony is that these experts try to cover this aspect in the name of innovation/creativity to be as blue sky as possible
- Most of the experts have read a couple of books on innovation etc and then use jargon’s from these books to ‘demonstrate’ their know how as innovation experts
- In the process these so called innovation experts have become “keyboard” or ‘armchair” experts doling out advice
- Most of the experts are REAL experts in scanning the internet for news/articles that talk about innovation and then these ‘keyboard’ innovation experts try and show which technique was used and how a great idea it was
- Here they refer to books that they have read to justify their theory and techniques used
- The above 2 (reading books & commenting on techniques used in articles) creates a self fulfilling cycle where the only work these so called ‘innovation experts’ are doing is the above 2
- Most of these experts have not done ANY innovation in their own domain/work areas. ZILCH is mostly what you will find. All they like to do is “talk” and not “do”. Most of their talking/writing is also almost always about ‘past’ and seldom about future. At best their future talk is very ‘general’ and of very low value
It is also important to mention that there are some great “innovation students” who are not called “innovation experts” but have managed to learn and appreciate about the role of innovation/creativity in their core work area. I know of a couple of such ‘innovation students’ who are very very technically competent and in senior positions and are successfully trying to mesh innovation/creativity into their every day work and things they do.
My money on furthering the cause of innovation lies in such ’students’ rather than the ‘experts’… These experts are nothing but the One Eyed Kings in the Land of the Blind…
Does an organization need a dedicated and separate KM function in order for it to do KM?
If one looks at great organizations like Google, Apple Yahoo (who are considered to be great Knowledge led organizations), they don’t have dedicated KM functions. What’s important is that the basic tenets, ethos and culture of KM needs to be part of the organizations ‘being’, the way of life — akin to the breathing process, doing it continuously without even realizing it.
All the above organizations (and many more) are role models in the knowledge era. The great thing about these organizations create processes & structures that truly embody the spirit of the ‘needs’ of the knowledge worker and through that they are able to attract the best talent and provide them with an environment that goes to the core of what knowledge management espouses. They don’t do KM for the sake of KM and saying ‘oh, we also do KM and realize the importance of it and hence we have dozens of knowledge managers supporting KM’…
I personally believe in the approach taken by the Google, Apple Yahoo type organizations as an effective way of doing KM.
For the ‘regular’ organizations I believe that creating a dedicated KM function is a good thing to bring ‘focus’ on KM and giving it legitimacy. This will send the right signals and help get going.
However, for KM to be truly effective in those organizations, over a period of time, the KM function should strive for enabling the different parts of the organizations to do KM themselves and not rely on the KM function. This is where KM needs to be part of the organizations ‘being’, the way of life. This should be the role and end goal of CKO’s and they should also be measured on this aspect. Once the above has started to happen (and this should happen in a measurable/definite time frame) then the KM function should be considered for dissolution and the charter of the KM function should become to just oversee it’s disbanding
The above may look good in theory but there are practical challenges like (just some of the many…):
- Over a period of time the person leading the KM function can get attached to it and can find it difficult to let go.
- KM has overlap with almost all functions and in the beginning there is less conflict and at a conceptual level people agree for KM to work on the areas of overlap and make progress. As clarity emerges and overlap areas gain traction, the different functions start voicing or thinking about what do these overlaps mean and start questioning this.
- This creates ground for small battles in bigger organizational ‘turf wars’ and results in various functions/departments further entrenching in their beliefs/positions and the organization opting for ’status quo’ approach to please all.
It’s sad but a true mirage and we continue to rely on “Knowledge Management needing the KM Function to be successful” approach…
